Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday September 20, 2011 @09:17AM
from the coff-new-toys-for-the-servants-coff dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The British government is examining whether it could save money by getting rid of its printers and giving civil servants free iPads instead. The head of the UK government skunkworks told silicon.com that if he got rid of all of a major government department's printers and gave staff iPads, the savings on printing costs would pay for the tablets in less than 18 months. The UK parliament has already let tablets into the debating chamber, with politicians already starting to choose to use tablets rather than bundles of papers in debates."

I question the methodology of that research. Was it just pure number crunching, or did they actually do physical tests? If they did do physical tests, did they use a stack of paper as thick as the ipad, or as thick as the amount of notes the ipad would replace in an average political debate?

With a blunt weapons of equal contact area, it all comes down to the mass of your weapon. Against an equal thickness stack of paper, the ipad would win due to density. But against the ream of paper notes a ipad can easil

Was it just pure number crunching, or did they actually do physical tests? If they did do physical tests, did they use a stack of paper as thick as the ipad, or as thick as the amount of notes the ipad would replace in an average political debate?

If they did do physical tests, did they use a stack of paper as thick as the ipad, or as thick as the amount of notes the ipad would replace in an average political debate? [snip] And I bet your research completely left out the papercut factor...

I propose we use an old fashioned cannon. Load one up with ipads, and another one with paper. It would probably result in far worse cuts than papercuts. However, to complete the process we will need to yell sarcastic and cynical remarks at the test subject. It's all in the name of science, mind you, not some personal grudge.

We'll need a large enough pool of test-subjects, so I suggest we start immediately at the European level and skip the British parliament for now. On second thought, let's just gather all

As I see it, there are two serious problems with this effort. First, sooner or later someone is going to want a hard copy of a document, if only because a software copy can be altered and is impermanent. Second, once you get away from paper, you lose one of the current fundamental obstacles to increasing the extent and power of bureaucracy, namely, that someone has to keep track of all the paperwork and some place has to be found to store it.

I dread to think of the makework that they'll have all those freed government employees doing in order to keep government rolls at current levels of employment and how much extra work it'll mean for anyone having to interact with that bureaucracy.

I think you raised a good but solvable point, which is there needs to be a trusted notary who can digitally sign and date any given document. There are commercial solutions for this [surety.com], but the govt. would need to select one and oversee it.

I dread to think of the makework that they'll have all those freed government employees doing in order to keep government rolls at current levels of employment and how much extra work it'll mean for anyone having to interact with that bureaucracy.

Someone's going to have to constantly train and re-train the users on how to turn the device on, where their documents are located, how to save, how to tie their shoes...

I dread to think of the makework that they'll have all those freed government employees doing in order to keep government rolls at current levels of employment and how much extra work it'll mean for anyone having to interact with that bureaucracy.

Someone's going to have to constantly train and re-train the users on how to turn the device on, where their documents are located, how to save, how to tie their shoes...

Yep - and then train them not to play Angry Birds (or check their email etc) when they are supposed to be running the country.

Yep - and then train them not to play Angry Birds (or check their email etc) when they are supposed to be running the country.

They don't run the country. Civil servants do that. Politicians just make lots of loud braying noises at each other across a large room with lots of comfy chairs designed for the purpose of catching a nice daytime snooze.

Exactly - they have ignored the TCO of iPads and compared only the initial purchase cost with the assumption that every civil servant with an iPad will never use a printer again! What about support, administration, setup of wifi networks or 3g costs, software and security updates, replacement of broken hardware etc.? That will be outsourced to some big corporation like Accenture, which will easily triple the initial purchase cost; the civil service apparently pays upto 10 times the commercial rate for IT systems [bbc.co.uk].

This is the same civil service that has consistently refused to upgrade from IE6 [eweekeurope.co.uk], and which their own MPs report said "The lack of IT skills in government and over-reliance on contracting out is a fundamental problem which has been described as a 'recipe for rip-offs'". Maybe they should fix the existing problems before they embark on a whole new IT rollout? And why iPads or Android tablets? What can a civil servant do with an tablet that they can't do with a cheaper laptop or netbook? And why dismiss the obvious solution to expensive printing costs - buy cheaper paper and ink? Or charge the users for each page printed? I have seen a per-page charge for printer use instigated at an institution and the change in user behaviour was fast and cut costs more than any large IT project every would. When printing is free it will get abused - people were printing out non-work-related manuals, books, home photos, stuff for their friends etc. Charging for printing stopped that overnight.

Charging for printing is fine, so long as you provide a system whereby employees can recover those costs for legitimate work related printing.

This is actually another benefit of home working, people can use their own printer to print things, and then reclaim the expenses for any work related printing they did.

Things to avoid tho...1, make sure that everything printed is logged... this also makes it harder to steal data via printing it2, make sure users cant connect direct to the printer, a lot of network pr

once you get away from paper, you lose one of the current fundamental obstacles to increasing the extent and power of bureaucracy, namely, that someone has to keep track of all the paperwork and some place has to be found to store it.

You don't work in government, I think - the stories I hear from the EU, what with them being mostly paperless, are of excessive workloads handling non-paper-based documents.

The attitudes of the generation that tend to be in power, for one. They won't understand digital signing, many of them come from a legal background, they understand signatures on bits of dead tree, what they know about digital copies they've probably learned from Hollywood, so they think it's all being cracked and streamed directly to Wikileaks as they type. That's a tough mentality to break (hell, I work in a "trendy" digital agency and even here where everyone has tablets or smartphones stuff still gets p

They won't understand digital signing, many of them come from a legal background, they understand signatures on bits of dead tree, what they know about digital copies they've probably learned from Hollywood

I was about to say that that's a bit harsh, but, on the whole, it's - sadly - probably true.

You don't need a CA, you can do it yourself. Which is fine for situations like this where it's being used internally. Otherwise, it's not really that different than in the US where most people never get to see the original bills that are being debated, just the electronic copy.

First, sooner or later someone is going to want a hard copy of a document, if only because a software copy can be altered and is impermanent.

This is a slightly silly reason. You're saying that if I print out a document, then it's more safe from being altered, since I can just change the digital copy. But if I print change the digital copy, I can just print out another altered version of the document.

You can keep a local copy of a document. You can even write-protect it and create a digital signature showing that it hasn't been altered. You can do document versioning to allow a document to be altered while preserving previous states.

You can scan, edit and reprint a paper copy... You can bleach out the ink and reprint parts of it, you could just transcribe it and make a new modified copy...A signature on paper is also totally worthless, its trivially easy to copy.

The trouble is, people have trust in paper and no trust in electronic devices, largely thanks to the likes of microsoft creating an impression among the general public that computers are always insecure and unreliable.

Hard copy is useful sometimes, but there are MANY occasions when its simply not necessary... Not just in politics, but during daily working most people encounter printed documents that they read *once* and then discard.

I'm sitting in an office right now and can see notepads all over the place full of non-searchable handwritten notes, piles of paperwork that's not moved for months, post-it notes everywhere etc. Paper goes missing, gets damages, blows around in the wind, gets liquid spilled on it etc...If you

Not that I'm suggesting my very poor government tries to build it's own device but surely a tablet sized kindle would be better? Some of those documents must be pretty bug, surely e-ink is the way forward in that regard?

Not that I'm suggesting my very poor government tries to build it's own device but surely a tablet sized kindle would be better? Some of those documents must be pretty bug, surely e-ink is the way forward in that regard?

Am I just being naive?

I'm sure you're right - but the cynic in me says that this is more about "what freebee can I get paid for by the taxpayer" than "what will be useful in doing my job". These iPads will get more use in playing "fart apps" in the house of commons bar and viewing porn in hotels than they ever do in the debating chamber.

You can get an HP Touchpad for $100US...Other tablets can be had for not a lot more...Even a brand new ipad2 is just $400US, 33% more than your thinkpad but its a new device actively supported by its manufacturer including a warranty. Government won't buy used devices. Not sure what the first gen ipad is selling for these days, but i believe apple are still selling them and at a lower price than the 2.

I agree with you. Something like a big Kindle would be best, although maybe with an OLED rather than e-ink screen (color's kinda important). Most of the stuff the iPad has is not needed for this. It's like buying an Accord to get around inside a big warehouse when a bicycle or golf cart would do the job better.

I agree with you. Something like a big Kindle would be best, although maybe with an OLED rather than e-ink screen (color's kinda important). Most of the stuff the iPad has is not needed for this. It's like buying an Accord to get around inside a big warehouse when a bicycle or golf cart would do the job better.

As the other tablet manufacturers have shown, its not possible to put in the sort of features that you mention and beat the iPad on price. I did think of the Kindle as a better alternative to start with but after looking at the requirements it's pretty clear that there's nothing else on the market that will reliably do the job. Oh, don't ask for the government to build its own tablet, that's just a recipe for disaster, large cost overruns, and them buying an iPad in the end anyway.

Not that I'm suggesting my very poor government tries to build it's own device but surely a tablet sized kindle would be better?

E-ink still takes too long to refresh (with that bizzare negative after-image effect) to support an iOS/Android style touch interface, without which panning and zooming around large PDFs, following hyperlinks, rapid skimming, annotating PDFs etc. is just too cumbersome.

E-ink rules for bedtime reading (long chunks of plain text in sequence) but for reference use with technical documents and hypertext - especially where it hasn't bee knidle-ized to render as re-flowable text, the slick UI beats the low-eyes

When you've been asked an unexpected question and are quickly flicking through a document trying to find the relevant section you really do need a faster update than current generation e-ink will offer, something either the iPad or a bundle of printed notes manages.

I'm not saying e-ink won't reach the point where it'd be suitable, I'm sure it will, but it's not there yet and trying to adapt a technology before it's usable for a given situation is a good way to guarantee that it'll quickly be scrapped and un

No, but Nook Color can do all the things that reasonably are necessary for work. At about half the cost of an iPad. And I'm sure that when the color version of Kindle is released that it too will be cheaper than an iPad.

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other as I don't own stock in any of the companies and don't pay the taxes that the pay for these devices, but it does strike me as a waste of tax payer dollars when a cheaper option is available.

It also runs counter to their promise to work with more open technologies, to buy everyone one of the more locked down devices. A more traditional OS tablet device would be a better option since it could also replace some of the functions of a traditional computer more easily, so at least they might get some benefit in reducing their desktop footprint.

And it just HAS to be an iPad. No cheaper, faster, better tablet will do. I am loving all these justifications we're seeing from different people as to why the iPad is the golden ticket they have been waiting for. Problem is no one is going to steal hard copy. People are going to steal iPads. No one will take hard copy home with them unless they absolutely have to (eugh who wants to do government work at home? I work from 9 to 5 only!). People will take iPads home with them, and they will be used by the wife and kids and family friends. Hard copy stays at the office, probably in a file somewhere. iPads will be traveling and vulnerable to being accessed by anyone - they seem to have a tendency to get left at bars.

And the government suddenly realized that it could do all this with $800 iPads but absolutely could NOT do it with $500 laptops. Just, wow. Tell me why we need government again?

You also have to be able to flip pages about as quick as you can flip a real one, and oh, actually flip enough pages to get work done. Sure, there's a raft of sub-$100 tablets out there, but none of them do either of these things.

They're looking for a way of replacing a stack of documents with electronic copies. The iPad is way more powerful than is needed and probably would increase the likelihood of people wasting time playing angry birds. Nook Color would fill that need without too much trouble at about half the price of the iPad. And I'm sure there are other options that are less expensive, yet serve the purpose, as well.

and can you hold any of those like paper? Does nobody read around here anymore? Have you ever worked in a government office? Do you have any clue how much paper, toner, printers, maintenance, shredders, shredding services, disposal services, physical space, all of that costs?

Nah, just getting lazy. ereaders still suck for pdf's or fast display, no way i'd want to look up legislation or court decisions on one of those.

As for android sure, not like I like programming in Objective C anyways. I just hink everybody here is smart enough to replace ipad with any tablet. Maybe they don't know about government tender processes? The reason ipads are getting picked is because nobody else is offering to supply, simple as that. Let's face it Apple knows how to push their product and

HP touchpad is cheaper, and technically faster (1.2ghz dual core vs 1ghz dual core, and twice the ram).Motorola Xoom is cheaper, has a 1ghz dualcore like the ipad2 but has a higher resolution screen, more ram and more storage.

"better" is totally subjective depending on your requirements, for geeks wanting to hack with linux these tablets are better, for other users perhaps not.

For this purpose, just about anything would be better than the iPad. Apple doesn't let you side-load apps; you have to go through their App Store. So if the government wants to make some custom app for viewing/filling out a form, they can't do it themselves. They have to send it through the App Store. That's the drawback of Apple's walled garden approach - you don't really own the device, and you're not free to do whatever you want with it.

No, Apple has an enterprise developer program where (for a hefty fee and a big formal agreement) you can develop whatever you want and deploy it directly to your enterprise-owned devices. No need to go through the app store. (I'm not saying that makes up for the fact that can't generally side-load apps, which is the main reason I avoid iOS devices, but in this case, your argument is wrong).

You need both, online access _and_ paper copies. As soon as you want to mark and highlight, paper beats all other options by a large margin. iPads should be regarded as low-reliability, high-maintenance, read-only and possible insecure alternative for document access.

This is the stupid idea of somebody that did not even try to understand the issue. The paperless office is a myth.

These are the issues I hit up against when trying to envision a paperless office.

I agree, there are some things that paper just plain does better. Marking up a document, taking quick notes at a meeting (I've yet to see something that beats a simple notepad for free-form note taking), objective evidence (digital files can be tampered and altered.. and while I suspect there are solutions, paper with someones signature on it still means a lot).

Marking up is cumbersome on a computer with mouse/keyboard, but a tablet can make this a lot more paper-like, especially if you use a stylus (using a finger feels odd)...

Paper can be tampered with just as easily as digital copies, and a hand written signature is an utterly ridiculous thing to use as a judge of authenticity... On the other hand digital files can be digitally signed, which is MUCH harder to tamper with.

But on the subject of digital signatures you do have a point, people need to rethink things

Sounds great in theory, but I've never seen it actually work out. I think it's the tactile feedback you get with pencil and paper.. but I've never been able to quickly make "normal sized" notes on any kind of tablet. Maybe it's a skill thing more than a technology thing. I see kids thumb-typing faster than I can type on a keyboard.. maybe with practice the current generation will be able to make a stylus and tablet do what I can do with paper through sheer practice.

I agree, there are some things that paper just plain does better. Marking up a document, taking quick notes at a meeting (I've yet to see something that beats a simple notepad for free-form note taking), objective evidence (digital files can be tampered and altered.. and while I suspect there are solutions, paper with someones signature on it still means a lot).

I fixed a friend's convertible Toshiba tablet 4 or so years ago. (Toshibas are garbage IMO.) The tablet had a stylus, and while the handwriting recognition was iffy it was about as close to paper as you could get while writing. One of the options was a "Highlight" mode that let you highlight text on the screen (or on a document) just like - get this - a highlighter.

This was all on Windows XP Tablet edition, which was pretty half-assed as far as tablet software goes and yet they got this right. How is it imp

As soon as you want to mark and highlight, paper beats all other options by a large margin.

I'd be less certain - I mark up and highlight a considerable volume of documents on a weekly basis (personal study/interest, as well as for my job), and have switched to using an iPad running iAnnotate PDF. This was my use case for buying the iPad, along with reading books - for me, it has considerable advantage overall over paper, in that I can carry a lot of information with me without lugging box files around, that the information is backed up, and the information (inc

That's the only way to get to the "paperless office"... remove the ability to use paper.

Keep any around, and it won't work. Lots of people with kick and scream and need to be drug into this. There are lots of things tablets and the like suck at that paper is good at. To move forward we have to find alternatives to those things that do work well in a paperless environment, but there are lots of people (I used to be one of them) who will decry that "your tablet sucks at " and use it as a reason to use paper.

That's the only way to get to the "paperless office"... remove the ability to use paper.

Keep any around, and it won't work. Lots of people with kick and scream and need to be drug into this. There are lots of things tablets and the like suck at that paper is good at. To move forward we have to find alternatives to those things that do work well in a paperless environment, but there are lots of people (I used to be one of them) who will decry that "your tablet sucks at " and use it as a reason to use paper.

It's a valid concern. Tablets and PCs are still horrible and inefficient to use. Even simple applications like reading a PDF book. Why the FUCK is it that in 2011 we still don't have user bookmarks as a standard feature in Adobe reader? That's just one simple example. The way to fix things is to actually address these issues BEFORE going paperless. That starts with software that isn't BRAINDEAD, buggy and cumbersome to use. If you take away the paper and force people to use the existing substandard apps that do not meet their needs their efficiency will just tank. People are right to keep hold of paper at the moment.

Why are you using adobe reader?PDF is an open standard, there are lots of PDF readers out there... I find it utterly ridiculous how many people seem to stick with the worst software available for this particular task.

The way to fix it is to simply abandon software that doesn't do what you need, and find a replacement that does. Open standards make this easy.

The single biggest problem with going paperless: It's way to easy and convenient to scribble on paper. Yes, many e-readers have some kind of ability to take notes, where you can select some text and add a carefully typed comment. Still, nothing beats a pen and paper for free-form note taking. I haven't seen a tablet that can handle crossing stuff out, scribbling notes in the margins, and drawing little diagrams in as simple and intuitive way as good ol' pen and paper.

Totally agree (even said it in some other post).. for quick free-form note taking, especially when say someone drops by your desk and starts spouting information at you, nothing has even approached paper in utility or speed.

On the topic of note taking, real-estate is another big issue. When I am working on a complex design, I like to spread papers out over a huge table surface... even with 3 monitors nothing beats having a huge surface to spread your work (and thoughts) out over.

I find when working on a complex design project, being able to see more information at once is important. I'll often have hand-drawn diagrams which span over multiple sheets.. and while once it's finished I can plug it into the computer and it's plenty usable, I find scrolling around rapidly trying to see the big picture just doesn't work for me.

At the very least, as you said, the ability to compare two sheets is useful.

Yes, but honestly, they're going to go for iPads. Unless they have a need that requires something else, it's almost silly not to. They cost for the feature set (including "thin" and "lightweight" as features) is unbeaten, and they have, according to some estimates, over 70% of the market. iOS devices are dominant, and there isn't a better tablet with more widespread support available.

Getting an Android tablet right now is kind of like getting a Macintosh in 2001. Either you're doing it because you have

There are numerous practical concerns with the iOS "software ecosystem" (ugh) that are addressed with going to Android. I shouldn't even have to make a list any more, because we've argued it into oblivion here already.

I find it doubtful that the cost of printers is £400 (the price of a basic 16GB WiFi model) over 18 months per member of staff.

Also, handing out tablets poses a massive information security risk, They're already quite picky about who they give a laptop to, and for good reason!

Then again, the article does seem to be talking about DCLG. That's a comparatively small department; most people would consider a "major government department" to be something like DWP, HMRC or the Home Office. DCLG only has a fe

Think of the jobs.First you have the people that make the paper. Then you have the people that sell and fix the printers, then you have the people that make and sell the ink, then you have the people that do the print runs, then you have the people that deliver the printout, then you have the people that collect the print outs, and then you have the paper recycling.It will never fly. They will just add iPads as an option and still do all the printing.If you don't believe me let me just put this in as proof.Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, and A400mSir Humphrey: You see minister if we provide iPads and the printed records we shall have all the advantages of portability and the accountability of a paper audit.PM: Do we want accountability?Sir Humphrey: We like to say so.PM: So we get all the advantages of increased efficiency with no job loss?Sir Humphrey: Precisely Minister and paper is cheap just a few pennies a sheet and you can not put a price on accountability.PM: Well that sound prefect.Sir Humphrey: Yes Prime Minister.Bernard: Sir Humphrey we spend three hundred million Euros a year on printing, supplies, paper, and personal. That does to be lot more than mere pennies.Sir Humphrey: I never said how many pennies where in a mere.

The British government is examining whether it could save money by getting rid of its printers and giving civil servants free iPads instead

And yet you didn't say they where "given" "free" printers, or "given" "free" paper, or "given" "free" ink/toner. Or chairs, or desks, or heating.

Now sure you can argue that choosing the iPad might be just picking the most trendy option rather than the best (in terms of costs and benefits). But instead you decided to inject the word "free" to try and bias the reader from the start. I assume you are paying the share of the building rent that your desk space/office space/whatever uses and your portion of the

A task as simple as getting a signature or writing notes on a document and giving it to a colleague becomes a complicated endeavor. Then you have to coordinate with other paper offices somehow to make your business operations smooth.

Someone has to support all these complicated tasks and it will costs a lot more money than the initial $400 purchase.

Well of course! Instead of mindlessly shuffling papers to look like their busy they can flick at the screen to appear as if shuffling papers while secretly playing angry birds!

Btw, I think it's a good idea. When I worked for the government I would have loved to have gotten rid of the bookcase of legislation, precedence, meeting minutes, errata, training documents, etc... that took up not only most of my workspace but for every single person working there as well. Having to pay for less office space and a

I do not think its a great idea for any government to buy into any closed system when alternatives exist. Yes the Android tablets are in their infancy but they can get better, especially when a need gives them purpose.

By that logic, he should be decking out staff with tablets costing half the price and he'll achieve the savings in 9 months. And the savings rack up since they're cheaper to replace when they're invariably stolen, broken, lost, worn out.

Of course iPads are The Thing to get and I'm sure MPs or civil servants want to be seen dead with a functionally equivalent, cheaper, more open tablet running a rival OS.

But it depends on how the guy is calculating costs. Is he saying that if zero paper printouts were created, the investment would pay off in less than 18 months? If so, then he is not doing this correctly. If he is saying that it will reduce paper printouts by something like 50% (and he'd need a solid basis for the figure), then perhaps this is a good idea. A lot of people here on Slashdot are annoyed that they are looking at iPads - and I agree - what a waste of money, etc. On the other hand, the artic

Do you really want to give them the distractions of Angry Birds and a zillion other apps? Do you really need color, for that matter? If iPads would pay for themselves in 18 months, Kindles (or equivalent) would pay for themselves in what, about 4 months?

Have you ever tried getting files onto the iPad in a useful, orderly way. I have thousands of documents which are synced with a land and cloud server. Often, it's faster to walk to my desk, navigate to the file, and print it out than it is to find it on the iPad.

Also, until they get a real stylus interface (and not the ones with the 5mm tip; 0.5mm would be more appropriate) you will never be able to make decent notes in the margins.

The reason why is that tablet are not being used (for the most part) as productivity devices. The vast bulk of tablet use is for light, non-business email and web surfing, music and video playing, and light gaming. Apple definitely has a much larger mind share among the general population than Android does.

I've seen nonsense idea's like this rolled out before. Looks great on paper, until an inevitable stream of people start chanting "I've lost my iPad again!". For some reason, it seems to be much harder to lose the office printer. Can't think why?